'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[Ben Cheshire]

On 'The Fellowship of the Ring' - from the above mentioned blog:

I recomend Pearl Harbor, it’s a much more historically acurate

That HAS to be satirical; he can't be serious...

[manicsounds]

"One of of the most important films I've ever seen"

Not that I care but someone may want to edit that before it goes to print.

Ya, I have the DVD, and it was fixed.

[domino harvey]

It now says "I overreacted you guys, it's not really one of of the most important films I've ever seen."

[colinr0380]

Well the love story between Affleck and Hartnett is quite touching...

I may be one of the very few people to have listened to all four commentaries on the Pearl Harbor Director's Cut DVD - the one with Jeanine Basinger fawning over just how well her film student has done in his directorial career since she taught him was excrutiating but surprisingly the actors commentary made everything worthwhile. Passing the three hour mark seems to make the actors crack under the pressure of trying to remain upbeat about the film (Affleck does gruff Alec Baldwin impressions throughout in contrast to his Sling Blade impressions whenever Billy Bob Thornton appeared during the Armageddon commentary) leading to a number of wry comments trying to stave off the waves of sentiment flowing from the screen, especially during the return home from the Doolittle retributary bombing raids with a certain character in their coffin:

Affleck revoicing his character with impeccable timing as the character reveals the coffin: "Hi! I'm OK too. I...just hurt my hand. Danny's sadly passed on! In fact I have him here with me!"

Hartnett: "I kind of made a pitch to be in the casket"

Affleck: "I made a pitch for you not to be. The pine box itself was really heavy getting it down those stairs by myself. I'm not sure I could do it with you in it! I could imagine falling down the steps with the casket, your dead body rolls out and its really awkward for all the families!"

Then there's a fun (and scarily prophetic in regard to the last sentence!) Alec Baldwin rant over the end credits complaining about the reaction to the film:

"It's not about the film, it's about them. They don't want an unironic film. They don't want a 50s love story. They don't want someone looking like Ben Affleck looking into the eyes of someone looking like Kate Beckinsale and saying very simple things about how they feel about each other, their circumstances and where they are and what they have to do. They don't want that. They want Pearl Harbor directed by Quentin Tarantino, which would have been...amusing to say the least."

Pure comedy gold!

[domino harvey]

Wait, is Pearl Harbor secretly good or something?

[colinr0380]

It's a well kept secret if it is.

[MichaelB]

Here's a fascinatingly wrong-headed IMDB view of Bicycle Thieves - riddled with spoilers, so I'll hide it:

Spoiler

This is the kind of movie I run into sometimes where I didn't discover I hated it until I got to the ending. But hate it I do, hate, hate, hate, and I sincerely look forward to never seeing it again. When I find myself so hating a movie that the rest of the world adores, my standard procedure is to give it one star, just to balance things. But in truth, this movie was so well made that I couldn't in good conscience give it only one star. So I gave it two.

"What's he talking about? How can he admit it's a terrifically made movie and yet hate it so much?" I hate it for it's message. I hate it for its point of view. I hate it for what it has to say, no matter how skillfully and artfully it says it. And it's not until we get to the ending that this message really becomes clear.

The message is one of hopelessness. Grim, grinding, depressing hopelessness. This movie is absolutely steeped in a malevolent universe premise. Everything sucks and there's nothing you can do about it.

The protagonist is a very likable guy. He clearly loves his wife and children and is trying his very best to somehow provide for them. When he manages to get his bicycle out of hock so that he can get the super-rare job, you exult with him that he's finally going to be able to make some money and feed his family. Of course, the unfortunate title of the film already leads you into instant stress over his situation, because you already *know* the bicycle, essential for his success, is going to be stolen (and you don't have to get very far into the film to realize that the title is probably going to end up applying just as much to himself, that he too is going to end up stealing a bicycle). And sure enough, on his very first day on the job, the bicycle is stolen. Now his only option is to try to find and retrieve the bicycle, a practically hopeless, impossible task. But one that could certainly be the core of an interesting, engrossing film story.

And it *is* an interesting and engrossing film story. I was totally caught up in it. I really felt for the guy, and wanted him to succeed. I felt for him, I felt for his kid, I felt for his brave, steadfast wife. Like I said, the hero is likable. He doesn't give up, he doesn't despair, he keeps plugging away, and, against all odds, he *does* manage to find the thief! And yet... it's all for nothing. Because this isn't a movie about triumph, about success, it's a movie about failure. Because finding the thief doesn't help, he proves to be untouchable, the police can do nothing. With every other avenue exhausted, at the end of his rope, he does indeed try to steal a bicycle himself, but he can't even succeed at that. The movie ends with him walking away, a completely shattered, broken man.

Well what kind of an ending is that?!? I watched the whole movie pulling for the guy, waiting for him to succeed *somehow*, and in the end, the message is, "Sorry, success is impossible, life is a stacked deck, there's no reason to even try." What kind of message is that?!? First off, it's depressing as hell, and I don't watch movies to be depressed. Second, it's a premise I strenuously reject. Life is NOT hopeless, the universe is NOT malevolent, happiness and success ARE possible.

One of the most useful things I've ever read on this site is a thread in the discussion section about whether the message of the film is intended to be Marxist. I confess that one of my reactions was that it did seem vaguely Marxist, or at least anti-capitalist. But the thread makes a good case that it really wasn't Marxist at all; indeed the communist guys in the film are no help at all. Nothing is any help. This movie is Anti-. Anti-everything. Capitalism clearly doesn't work, communism doesn't, religion doesn't help, government (in the form of the police) doesn't help. A loving wife, a dedicated friend, nothing helps. This is a horribly nihilistic, depressing philosophy. Apparently the only thing that the movie makers believe in is making artistic movies.

I suspect that the movie makers thought it was chic, or sophisticated, or artistic to be anti-everything. Well, not in my book. You have to be *for* *something*. But in one limited respect, I'll buy into their anti-everything philosophy: I'm anti-this film.

Is it just me, or is there a really really obvious point that he's missed? A small gesture in the very last shot that turns his entire "anti-everything" argument on his head, for instance?

[Sloper]

Spoiler

I guess you mean when Bruno puts his hand into his father's? That's such an awful moment, though - you can see that, if anything, it just exacerbates Antonio's despair, because he realises it's his son who supports him more than the other way around. The gesture is so generous and loving and understanding, it throws into relief his own failures as a father. Not that we necessarily see him as a 'failure', just that we know that's how he feels at the end. That moment is the one that always starts me blubbing, every single time, no matter who I'm watching the film with. Terribly embarrassing.

What this reviewer misses, I think, is the way that Antonio is buoyed up by other people, and Bruno's gesture is certainly part of that. It isn't true to say that his friends are 'no help at all'; while they don't actually get his bicycle back for him, they are remarkably eager to give their time and effort to aid him in the search. The film actually doesn't paint human nature as being irredeemably selfish - even the thief isn't a wholly unsympathetic character - and it's that sense that Antonio isn't alone, that he does have at least a few friends who will look after him, which gives a glimmer of hope at the end, when he is swallowed back into the crowd. Michael, you might have been referring to the moment when the owner of the bicycle sees Bruno and lets Antonio go without pressing charges; that alone would be enough to stop this being a wholly despairing film. Whether you call it 'Marxist' or not, the film's message (if it has one) is about the need for co-operation, as opposed to self-interest. So it certainly isn't anti-everything.

[MichaelB]

I was specifically referring to Bruno's gesture - but you're right: there's more than enough in the closing scenes to undermine the argument even aside from that.

[domino harvey]

I don't watch movies to be depressed.

This is shorthand for "Stop listening to me now"

[Caged Horse]

Someone Fed-Ex this guy a copy of the wrist-slittingly pessimistic Humanity and Paper Balloons, wait five minutes, then dial 911.

[zedz]

AV Club calls The General "perhaps the first action comedy". Perhaps not.

Moral: if you're completely ignorant about a particular subject area - e.g. American silent comedy - it's probably best to avoid making sweeping generalisations about it.

[Sloper]

Watching The General now means wondering how the hell Keaton and his crew pulled off many of the biggest stunts, then laughing at his finely honed sense of whimsy.

If that's what watching The General means then count me out it sounds absolutely hateful.

And the epic sweep of his cinematic knowledge is breathtaking:

Steven Spielberg famously studied the train-chase scenes to create the mine-cart sequence in Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (still the best reason to watch that movie), but the film’s template is echoed in practically every other film in the genre, right down to 2008’s Pineapple Express.

[toddvdw]

Hey, guys.

I likely shouldn't be responding to this, but it's a Sunday, and I have nothing better to do.

I'll cop to the idea that calling The General "perhaps the first" action comedy makes it sound like it WAS the first, something I didn't realize as I wrote it. (I thought it would be a more forceful way of saying "one of the first," instead of saying that phrase, which sounds kind of wishy-washy to my ears.)

But as far as the rest of the stuff goes, I'll stand by it. I write for a pretty mainstream-oriented site, and lapsing into critic-ese can make people tune out of stuff they should really be checking out. I've found reviews of silent films often have to overcome a lot of pre-bias on the part of the audience, which isn't terribly inclined to watch a silent movie in the first place. So I was trying to place it in a modern context that might make it seem fun instead of like homework. I don't think it's anything near my best review, and I appreciate the criticism, but I'm sorry it gave the impression I've only seen, like, two movies in my life.

I realize this is ridiculously thin-skinned, but, again, Sunday.

This is a great forum, though. I'd love to stick around.

TV

[Jeff]

While I agree that the stuff about being the "first action comedy" is inaccurate and unnecessary, I don't have a problem with anything else in that review. The bit about Spielberg is accurate and appeals to the A.V. Club readership (myself included). If it gets people who normally wouldn't think about seeing a Buster Keaton film to give it a shot, then it's more useful than most reviews.

[Mr Sausage]

I think that might be the most good natured and articulate reponse to forum mocking that we've ever gotten from a professional critic.

So, welcome to the forum, Toddvdw.

[Sloper]

You know, I usually find the criticisms in this thread a little unfair because they're so often based on simple disagreements with the reviewer's opinion - I guess what riled me in this case was a feeling that the review was rather patronising to Keaton (who is my all-time favourite comic, bar none), and this relates exactly to the 'bias' you're talking about. I do understand your desire to 'sell' the product to a presumably unresponsive audience, and if your review sells a few more copies of The General then good for you; and thank you. But it is a little frustrating sometimes, for tragic fanboys like me, that these films have to be 'sold' in this way, by playing up the 'whimsy', or by comparing them to Spielberg/Seth Rogen films.

Anyway, for what it's worth Todd, I felt kind of bad after writing that post - and feel a lot worse now - and never would have thought I'd be the one to test the skin-thickness of a new member here. But well done for not doing what certain respected film critics have done recently (namely come in with chip firmly on shoulder and all guns blazing), but instead posting a reasonable and intelligent reply.

And remember, you're a named writer for the AV Club, and I'm an anonymous coward who posts on some forum.

[zedz]

While I agree that the stuff about being the "first action comedy" is inaccurate and unnecessary, I don't have a problem with anything else in that review.

Me neither, I just thought it was amusing to characterise this film as an early 'action comedy,' since it seems to me that that's the genre practically every high profile American silent comedy of the period falls into (Harold Lloyd, Keystone Cops, every other Keaton feature?)

Welcome aboard, anyway!

[HarryLong]

I just thought it was amusing to characterise this film as an early 'action comedy,' since it seems to me that that's the genre practically every high profile American silent comedy of the period falls into (Harold Lloyd, Keystone Cops, every other Keaton feature?)

And howzabout Doug Fairbanks?

I felt kind of bad after writing that post - and feel a lot worse now

I feel your pain, sloper. I have on occasion been contacted by the subjects of my bad reviews. One is suddenly dealing with a real person rather than a subject.
Of course I still give bad reviews ...

[MichaelB]

I feel your pain, sloper. I have on occasion been contacted by the subjects of my bad reviews. One is suddenly dealing with a real person rather than a subject.
Of course I still give bad reviews ...

I still remember the first time I got an email from the director of a film I'd reviewed, with the subject line 'Your review'. To say I clicked on it with trepidation is something of an understatement, as while it wasn't a slating it was by no means an uncritical thumbs up - but in fact it was a really nice thank-you note: he wasn't remotely blind to his (ultra low-budget DV-shot debut) film's flaws, but he appreciated that I'd at least bothered to engage with its ideas and take them seriously.

One thing I always have to bear in mind when writing Sight & Sound reviews of low-budget British films is that it's close to an absolute certainty that someone associated with the film, and probably quite a few people, will read it. Which doesn't remotely mean that I won't slag off a film if it deserves it (case in point: my recent review of toe-curlingly inept Leeds supernatural would-be shocker The Spell), but it does mean I'll bend over backwards to be factually accurate. Not least because my review might well be the longest it gets in a mainstream publication.

[GaryC]

That happened to me once - the director of a low-budget British comedy complained about the 2/20 review of his film (which I reviewed on VHS - it didn't get a cinema release). How much work he'd done with no money, and his Mum did the catering etc etc. Kudos for him for making a 35mm feature (with some well-known actors in the cast) but I thought the results were inept, not funny (I wanted to slap the main character, hard) and made by a Woody Allen wannabe.

When I can get through the ridiculous number of extras (two commentaries are just the start), I will be posting a review of a dreadful British action movie called Ten Dead Men at DVD Times.

[Minkin]

This would probably be more fitting in "Ridiculous customer and critic reviews" but it is a "list." I know that it is based on people's feedback- and not very many people either. I don't use yahoo- never visited their site or done anything with it. So why do I bring this up then? I recently visited some friends who had a young aspiring cinephile. I spoke with him and eventually asked how he has been selecting what movies to watch- and he told me he checks the Yahoo top rated movies. So, today I decided to check that listing- expecting a situation very similar to IMDB with modern boxoffice hits grazing the top- but I was completely surprised by my find. There is a very strange trend among their top films. I don't know whether it is someone with multiple accounts or whether Yahoo is predominantly used by Russians- but a quick browse through the list is very ethnocentric.

Yahoo all time rated films

At number one of all time with 571 votes by "yahoo! users" it is the 1965 classic- Operation "Y" and Other Shurik's Adventures

With such a low turnout of votes- I could imagine that this forum could seriously alter their ranking quite easily- let alone a single person could probably do it with enough time. I wouldn't call attention to this but it has fooled one young person already and presents enough of an odd, conspiracy-like tendency to be commented. Perhaps Yahoo is Russia's US spy infiltration network.

[NilbogSavant]

I wish I watched Slave of Love, Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors, and The Cranes are Flying when I first started getting into movies. That kid could do a lot worse.

[knives]

I will never understand this sort of ostrich mentality.

If you want to leave with bad feelings; this is for you. Acting may be OK, but to write about such sad reality is not for me, especially at this time of the year. Christmas Carol by Dickens would be a better replacement. After the first disc, could not even think of watching the other two.

[Magic Hate Ball]

I will never understand this sort of ostrich mentality.

If you want to leave with bad feelings; this is for you. Acting may be OK, but to write about such sad reality is not for me, especially at this time of the year. Christmas Carol by Dickens would be a better replacement. After the first disc, could not even think of watching the other two.

This is for, by the way, The Golden Age Of Television (I wish you people would label these), which means that this person presumably has the set, and is actively ignoring it because he or she finds the content depressing. I do like the title of the review: "this could be a waste your money". Waste your money indeed.